Would you say PAL is a bad DVD format?

[Jappyanime]

Just wanted to ask around.
I dislike PAL.

[hech54]

Just wanted to ask around.
I dislike PAL.

You mean "PAL - The Everywhere But America(almost)" format?

[edDV]

When in Rome, Italy use PAL/DVB.

When in Rome, Georgia, USA, use NTSC/ATSC.

[intracube]

Just wanted to ask around.

Not at all. Only times I'd prefer to watch an 'NTSC' disc is if the original content was shot at native NTSC frame-rates (as opposed to film), or if a disc had been authored badly (the topic of your other thread).

I wouldn't want to watch films from NTSC DVDs as the content would have been through 3:2 pull down to convert from 24p->29.97 - which introduces quite noticeable judder*. The PAL conversion technique, a simple 4% speedup doesn't introduce any extra judder.

*some modern TVs can take a 3:2 pull down sequence and convert back to the original 24p - eliminating the judder. PCs and some standalone players might also be able to do this.

[Atak_Snajpera]

I dislike PAL.

I dislike NTSC. Try to put 23.976 into 29.97. 24fps -> 25 fps on other hand is alot easier. Speed up video and audio by ~4% and you have perfect motion and progressive frames.

[jagabo]

And PAL DVD has higher resolution. 720x576 vs 720x480.

[filmboss80]

PAL, NTSC, and SECAM systems were developed decades before DVD was even conceived; but DVD media producers had to release products that would output to existing TV sets. Advancing technology would have rendered those old broadcasting systems obsolete many years ago, but there was a need to accommodate the billions of TV viewers who had already invested in their home TV sets and did not want to have to buy new ones every time technological improvements were made possible.

It can be said that PAL, NTSC, and SECAM are all "bad" systems, but "worse" systems, in the minds of most consumers, would have been the ones that forced everyone to throw away their TVs and buy new ones all at once. Not everyone can be ideally accommodated, so allowances sometimes have to be made. It ain't a perfect world, but there's no point in complaining.

[jman98]

Some people are a LOT less sensitive to motion artifacts than intracube. Honestly, 99% of consumers don't care or even notice it.

PAL speedup of 4% is hardly anything to be proud about, but again, most people don't notice or care.

NTSC and PAL/SECAM use the frame rates they do essentially because of electricity in the countries that developed those systems - NTSC is in 120 volt countries and PAL is in 220 volt countries (there may be a very few exceptions - I am too lazy to check). And you'd have to go back 100 years or so to understand why there are electricity differences in the world. NTSC was designed so its color system was backwards compatible with existing black and white TV technology. Nobody ever claimed it was perfect, not even at the time. PAL was designed to be better than NTSC and SECAM was intended to be an improvement on PAL, but SECAM was done really mostly for political reasons than practical ones. I have a converting DVD player so I don't care if my DVD is PAL or NTSC.

[NoBuddy]

For Movies (Picture Quality) I always prefer PAL.
Music DVDs : NTSC. --> Yes, you can hear the higher pitch. (At least for me - when A isn´t 440 Hz anymore, it hurts a little bit, haha)

And living in NTSC-land: never had a DVD player that couldn´t play both formats. From the older High-tech-Models to the newest 20 bucks no-name cheapo: all play both formats flawless.

[Constant Gardener]

I can usually ignore the pitch problem with PAL discs, and so I have no issue with either format. It is annoying, though, when friends want to borrow a PAL disc and I have to explain why their name-brand player won't handle it, and tell them they need a cheapie from Walmart, or even an Oppo, to view it.

[jman98]

It's a crap shoot, but sometimes the manufacturer will repitch the audio for PAL to correct the higher pitch caused by the 4% speedup. Yes, it's very obvious when it happens. I avoid PAL music DVDs when I have a choice for this reason.

[Chopmeister]

Although I'm in a PAL country, I have quite a few NTSC import disks. My secondary DVD player (a $NZ 59 cheapie from the supermarket, the primary is a recorder model) is de-regioned and will cope with both NTSC and PAL disks without signal conversion(*) - an NTSC disk is output as NTSC and a PAL disk as PAL. My TV will cope with PAL and NTSC signals.

In truth, I can't easily tell the difference. While the picture quality on PAL disks may be, on average, slightly better due to the higher resolution - the difference isn't as material as the disk-to-disk variation due to the quality of the encoding and mastering of the individual disks.

* I think I can force PAL signal output for all disk types if I wanted to, but as the TV copes just fine I have never seen the point/need to do so.

[TimA-C]

Just wanted to ask around.
I dislike PAL.

Why?

[mail2tom]

I thought DVD-ROM, DVD-R, and DVD+R (including dual-layer) were DVD formats, and PAL, NTSC, SECAM (and variants) were video formats.

[jagabo]

I think everyone understand we're talking about the difference between DVDs distributed in PAL areas (720x576, 25 fps) and NTSC areas (720x480, 29.97 fps).

[Cornucopia]

Sheesh! This is like a 3rd grader's argument "I like chocolate!" "No, I like vanilla!"

They're basically the same, with PAL holding a slight edge in spatial resolution and NTSC holding a slight edge in temporal resolution. Both are products of their day, but workable compromises. In terms of transmission, PAL also has a slight edge in retention of proper color, but this edge was eroded once PLL circuits & comb filtering became commonplace. And it's now a moot point with the end of analog transmissions (at least here in North America).

Both types have to make compromises when dealing with 24p Film. Some people are bothered by one type of compromise, some bothered by the other. Most people who have grown up under one system seem to have adapted well to that system and prefer it. But that's just the power of human adaptation.

So in answer: I would say PAL is one of 2 GOOD DVD formats, the other GOOD DVD format being NTSC. All other "DVD formats" are BAD because they don't follow the spec. DVD was built assuming each/both of these were equally acceptable as SD formats.

Now that we live in a growing HD world, their compromises do begin to grate on people. But I wouldn't complain about the shitty fidelity of a 78rpm lacquer disc either. It was a product of its time. Could you improve it with filters & enhancements? Sure, you could try if you know what you're doing. Otherwise, just enjoy it for what it is.

This seems a strange question from someone from Australia (where that is the system of the land) to be asking. Unless they are a recent immigrant or something. If so, you'll get used to it!

Scott

[edDV]

If anyone has specific questions, we stand ready to answer. I'm old enough to remember the early NTSC broadcasts, pre-PAL 405 line mono broadcasts in the UK and 819 line mono broadcasts in France.

In my engineering career I've dealt with nearly every format combination including PAL-M in Brazil and 60Hz SECAM in Saudi Arabia.

Analog composite NTSC usually has modulated color to a 3.58MHz subcarrier, PAL usually to a 4.43MHz subcarrier. As analog broadcast is phased out, the typical consumer only encounters analog PAL or NTSC in the following cases.

Analog composite (yellow) - baseband composite NTSC or PAL on a single coax.
Laserdisc - the full composite NTSC or PAL signal recorded as pits in the disc similar to an LP record.
S-Video - luma is sent on one coax (pins 1-2), modulated subcarrier C on another (pins 3-4).
SCART - variations of analog composite, Y/C or RGB (no digital).
Legacy VHS tape - luma is recorded FM to tape while modulated subcarrier is recorded as "color under" AM.

Composite Digital Video (Phase One 1972-1994)

Early digital video was sampled as a multiple of subcarrier (either 3x or 4x). This required different equipment for NTSC and PAL with greatly different bit rates. Composite digital remained in the broadcast domain, there were no consumer versions.

Component Digital Video (Phase Two 1984-present)

The CCIR-601 Y,Cb,Cr standard cleverly used a single 13.5 MHz sample rate that worked with both 525/60 and 625/50 video standards using either 704x480/29.97fps or 704x576/25fps rasters. This allowed common equipment to be designed to handle both standards.

Color was not modulated as NTSC or PAL, but as "color difference" components based on B-Y and R-Y. In other words there is no NTSC or PAL in component digital video but people continued to refer to 704(720)x480 as "NTSC" and 704(720)x567 as "PAL" even though they were both Y,Cb,Cr.

DVD and SD digital broadcasting (ATSC/DVB) used the CCIR-601 (ITU-Rec.601) component digital definitions but instead of uncompressed, applied MPeg compression to Y, Cb and Cr.

Ask any questions that remain.

[hello_hello]

I'm glad I live in PAL-land. As my TV doesn't have a 24p mode I use Reclock to play everything at 25fps with the TV refreshing at 50Hz. I guess you could call it a PAL-Film mode.

[vidyarathne]

i noticed that NTSC picture quality and colour quality is better than PAL (when using computer).i'm living in PAL-land so i like PAL 4:3 movies .because they look better in TV. and i like PAL video vintage look

[mikk]

PAL is technically superior - 20% more resolution and less likelihood of colour going wrong (although these days that shouldn't matter).

NTSC used to be called "Never Twice the Same Color".

The times when both formats look particularly bad is when they are converted to the other.

If you're comparing which is better for movies (originally 24fps), then PAL is better hands down. The extra frames of NTSC become completely useless since 3:2 pulldown has to be used.

[edDV]

PAL is technically superior - 20% more resolution and less likelihood of colour going wrong (although these days that shouldn't matter).

NTSC used to be called "Never Twice the Same Color".

The times when both formats look particularly bad is when they are converted to the other.

If you're comparing which is better for movies (originally 24fps), then PAL is better hands down. The extra frames of NTSC become completely useless since 3:2 pulldown has to be used.

Most of this applies only to legacy video since broadcast has moved on to HD and DVD to Blu-ray. The color issues only apply to analog composite or S-Video. Even these haven't been a serious issue since the 80s.

As said above, there is no "PAL" or "NTSC" in DVD. Both use 4:2:0 Y,Cb,Cr at similar bit rates.

"NTSC" DVD can be native 60i(aka 29.97i) or 23.976p. Because of the higher maximum field rate (59.94) resolution is reduced to 480 acan lines to compensate. Because "PAL" DVD has a lower field rate (50 fps), resolution can be higher at 576 lines.

None of this applies to HD. Both use 1280x720 or 1920x1080 resolution. Maximum frame/field rates remain 59.94 or 50 as before. The differences are down to frame/field rate.

If you're comparing which is better for movies (originally 24fps), then PAL is better hands down. The extra frames of NTSC become completely useless since 3:2 pulldown has to be used.

Hard telecine doesn't have to be used. Most movie DVDs are encoded with soft telecine (pulldown flags) where the actual data on the disk is at 23.976p rate.

[manono]

If you're comparing which is better for movies (originally 24fps), then PAL is better hands down.

Not exactly true, just like the rest of your ill-informed post. In addition to the points edDV made, lets not forget that PAL speed is 4% faster than natural and the audio is almost always off-pitch.

[AlanHK]

If you're comparing which is better for movies (originally 24fps), then PAL is better hands down.

Not exactly true, just like the rest of your ill-informed post. In addition to the points edDV made, lets not forget that PAL speed is 4% faster than natural and the audio is almost always off-pitch.

Only if the source is NTSC, or 24 fps film.
Not if the source is PAL. As it is for me when I watch UK and Australian TV on DVD.

Otherwise. 576 lines vs 480 has to be better. And no screwing around with pulldown: 25 fps is 25, better than 24 + 6 dupes.

So, all else being equal I'll always choose PAL.

Saving 4% of the runtime compared to NTSC is a bonus

[Cornucopia]

I'm sure I'm biased, but since ALL the famous Hollywood movies (nonsilent) run at 24fps, and I'm use to pulldown so it doesn't bother me. And I HATE when shows are sped up even just a little bit (both picture motion and sound pitch/tempo). So NTSC is clearly better.

Scott

[hello_hello]

Given I generally use ReClock to play 24fps video at 25fps to avoid the judder which does bother me, the audio is resampled to avoid a pitch increase and I'd have to run two videos side by side to pick which is running at which speed (aside from the absence of judder)..... and given I could choose to watch 24fps video at 60hz but go out of my way to watch it at 25fps and 50hz, I think at best NTCS vs PAL comes down to personal preference.